Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 703
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 703-305 (2026)

  Use of force for the protection of other persons

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §703-305  Use of force for the protection of other persons.  (1)  Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-310, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:

     (a)  Under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and

     (b)  The actor believes that the actor's intervention is necessary for the protection of the other person.

     (2)  Notwithstanding subsection (1):

     (a)  When the actor would be obliged under section 703-304 to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing, or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, the actor is not obliged to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless the actor knows that the actor can thereby secure the complete safety of such other person;

     (b)  When the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be obliged under section 703-304 to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if the person knew that the person could obtain complete safety by so doing, the actor is obliged to try to cause the person to do so before using force in the person's protection if the actor knows that the actor can obtain the other's complete safety in that way; and

     (c)  Neither the actor nor the person whom the actor seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the other's dwelling or place of work to any greater extent than in the actor's or the person's own. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1993]

 

Revision Note

 

  In subsection (2)(a), "and" deleted pursuant to §23G-15.

 

COMMENTARY ON §703-305

 

  This section extends the defense of justification to include the use of physical force to protect another person on the same terms as the defense is available for the use of force in self-protection.  The Code follows the Model Penal Code in allowing defense of others regardless of the relationship between the actor and the person being protected.  It permits a person to use force to protect another person when the actor believes the other person would have been justified in using force to protect himself and he believes that his intervention is necessary to protect the other person.  This formulation covers situations in which the other's infirmity, infancy, or other physical condition makes him especially unable to protect himself or susceptible to injury, even though the actor, in a similar predicament, might not himself have been justified in using force.

  Subsection (2) provides certain exceptions and limitations.  The actor need not retreat, surrender possession, or comply with a demand unless the actor knows the actor can thereby secure the complete safety of the other person.  The actor must try to persuade the other person to retreat, surrender possession, or comply with a demand if the actor knows the actor can obtain the other's complete safety in that way.  Finally, retreat is not required if the action takes place in the other's dwelling or place of business to any greater degree than is required in §703-304.

  Hawaii case law shows only bare recognition of this type of justification.[1]  The Code provides codification and elaboration.

 

Case Notes

 

  Jury instruction relating to the defense of the use of force for the protection of other persons pursuant to this section was erroneous as it improperly included elements relating to the defense of the use of force in self-protection under §703-304; however, error was harmless because there was no evidence in the record to support a finding that, under the circumstances as a person would reasonably believe them to be, defendant was justified in using force in defense of others.  123 H. 205, 231 P.3d 478 (2010).

  Defendant entitled to consideration of justification defense no matter how weak, unsatisfactory or inconclusive the evidence appeared.  81 H. 142 (App.), 913 P.2d 553 (1996).

  Defendant not justified in using protective force against complaining witness where, under circumstances as defendant believed them to be, a reasonable person would not reasonably believe person sought to be protected would be justified in using protective force against complaining witness.  81 H. 142 (App.), 913 P.2d 553 (1996).

  Unborn children are not included within the definition of "another" or "person" for purposes of the Hawaii Penal Code; thus, defendant could not justify defendant's physical abuse of girlfriend on grounds that defendant was protecting "another" or a third person, specifically, defendant's unborn child.  101 H. 3 (App.), 61 P.3d 514 (2002).

  Trial court did not err in denying defendant's request that in addition to the choice of evils defense under §703-302, jury be instructed on the justification defenses of use of force in the protection of self and others under §703-304 and this section; defendant's theory of defense was fully and adequately covered by the choice of evils instruction which the trial court gave and under the circumstances of the case, there was no reasonable possibility that the jury, which rejected defendant's choice of evils defense, might have embraced defenses based on §703-304 and this section.  114 H. 507 (App.), 164 P.3d 765 (2007).

  Although the justification provisions of subsection (2)(b), which addressed the defendant's obligation to attempt to cause the third party to retreat before the defendant uses force, was not discussed in the jury instructions, by not instructing the jury with regard to that qualification, the trial court effectively gave defendant the benefit of the justification even if defendant would otherwise not have been entitled to rely on it under subsection (2)(b); thus, the trial court's failure to instruct with regard to this section was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  120 H. 499 (App.), 210 P.3d 22 (2009).

  There was sufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that defendant was not acting to protect defendant's girlfriend where defendant's girlfriend was already the aggressor when defendant dragged victim by the hair to support defendant's conviction of harassment under §711-1106(1)(a).  Further, defendant's girlfriend's ex-husband testified that defendant's girlfriend "went for" victim before defendant pulled victim by victim's hair, thus negating defendant's defense-of-others justification defense pursuant to this section.  130 H. 332 (App.), 310 P.3d 1033 (2013).

 

__________

§703-305 Commentary:

 

1.  The King v. Bridges, 5 Haw. 467, 472 (1885); Territory v. Warren, 35 Haw. 232, 245 (1939); rehearing denied, 35 Haw. 252.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case: State v. Mark, 231 P.3d 478 (Haw. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Mark, 231 P.3d 478 (Haw. 2010). · cites it 34× “2003); however, (2) the error was harmless because there was no evidence in the record to support a finding that, under the circumstances as a person would reasonably believe them to be, Petitioner was justified in using force in defense of others; (3) although there was…”
State v. Nupeiset, 977 P.2d 183 (Haw. App. 1999). · cites it 27× “The justification defense based on defense of others is codified in HRS § 703-305 (1993), which provides: Use of force for the protection of other persons.”
State v. Augustin, 63 P.3d 1097 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 12× “) The foregoing language derives from the statutory defenses of "use of force in self-protection," as codified in HRS § 703-304 (1993), and "use of force for the protection of other persons," as codified in HRS § 703-305. HRS § 703-304 provides in relevant part: (1) .”
State v. Mark, 210 P.3d 22 (Haw. App. 2009). · cites it 19× “Mark’s next argument, concerning the defendant’s duty to retreat or comply, requires us to evaluate HRS § 703-305, which establishes the defense of others justification, and § 703-304, which establishes the self-defense justification.”
State v. Matuu., 445 P.3d 91 (Haw. 2019). · cites it 8× “As noted by the ICA, a person of reasonable caution could conclude "that it was [not] necessary [for Matuu] to stab Frank in the torso multiple times to protect himself against death or serious injury.”
State v. Pavao, 913 P.2d 553 (Haw. App. 1996). · cites it 18× “His sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to acquit Defendant because there was insufficient evidence to negative his defense of use of force for the protection of other persons under HRS § 703-305 (1993). We affirm. The following facts were adduced at…”
State v. Padilla, 164 P.3d 765 (Haw. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “2006) and HRS § 703-305 (1993). HRS § 703-304 provides in relevant part: § 703-304 Use of force In self-protection.”
State v. Jhun, 927 P.2d 1355 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 5× “Jhun attempted to justify his stabbing Cornelius by asserting that his actions were necessary in order to protect his brother Ronald pursuant to HRS § 703-305(1) (1993), which provides: § 703-305 Use of force for the protection of other persons.”
State v. DeMello, 310 P.3d 1033 (Haw. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “The District Court found DeMello guilty as charged and specifically rejected his defense-of-others justification under HRS § 703-305 (1993). Under the circumstances, neither Cheri-lyn nor the defendant would have been justified in using the kind of force that was used in this…”
State v. Jardine, 61 P.3d 514 (Haw. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “HRS § 703-305 (1993) further provides, in relevant part: Use of force for the protection of other persons.”
State v. Lealao, 272 P.3d 1227 (Haw. 2012). · cites it 4× “Self defense, HRS § 703-304 (2001), 10 or defense of others, HRS § 703-305 (1993), 11 depends on the actor’s belief that the use of force was necessary either to protect oneself or another.”
State v. Adam, 38 P.3d 581 (Haw. App. 2002). “§ 703-305; and that he used force for the protection of his property, H.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 703-305(1) — 3 cases
State v. Jhun, 927 P.2d 1355 (Haw. 1996). “Jhun attempted to justify his stabbing Cornelius by asserting that his actions were necessary in order to protect his brother Ronald pursuant to HRS § 703-305(1) (1993), which provides: § 703-305 Use of force for the protection of other persons.”
State v. Pavao, 913 P.2d 553 (Haw. App. 1996). “His sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to acquit Defendant because there was insufficient evidence to negative his defense of use of force for the protection of other persons under HRS § 703-305 (1993). We affirm. The following facts were adduced at…”
State v. Lauvao (Haw. App. 2022).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 703-305(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Ngalu, Jr. (Haw. App. 2021).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 703-305(1)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Ngalu, Jr. (Haw. App. 2021).
Vandenberg v. State, 206 P.3d 472 (Haw. App. 2009).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 703-305(2) — 2 cases
State v. Mark, 231 P.3d 478 (Haw. 2010). “2003); however, (2) the error was harmless because there was no evidence in the record to support a finding that, under the circumstances as a person would reasonably believe them to be, Petitioner was justified in using force in defense of others; (3) although there was…”
State v. Nupeiset, 977 P.2d 183 (Haw. App. 1999). “The justification defense based on defense of others is codified in HRS § 703-305 (1993), which provides: Use of force for the protection of other persons.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 703-305(2)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Mark, 210 P.3d 22 (Haw. App. 2009). “Mark’s next argument, concerning the defendant’s duty to retreat or comply, requires us to evaluate HRS § 703-305, which establishes the defense of others justification, and § 703-304, which establishes the self-defense justification.”
State v. Nupeiset, 977 P.2d 183 (Haw. App. 1999). “The justification defense based on defense of others is codified in HRS § 703-305 (1993), which provides: Use of force for the protection of other persons.”
State v. Mark, 231 P.3d 478 (Haw. 2010). “2003); however, (2) the error was harmless because there was no evidence in the record to support a finding that, under the circumstances as a person would reasonably believe them to be, Petitioner was justified in using force in defense of others; (3) although there was…”
Vandenberg v. State, 206 P.3d 472 (Haw. App. 2009).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 703-305(2)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Mark, 210 P.3d 22 (Haw. App. 2009). “Mark’s next argument, concerning the defendant’s duty to retreat or comply, requires us to evaluate HRS § 703-305, which establishes the defense of others justification, and § 703-304, which establishes the self-defense justification.”
State v. Nupeiset, 977 P.2d 183 (Haw. App. 1999). “The justification defense based on defense of others is codified in HRS § 703-305 (1993), which provides: Use of force for the protection of other persons.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 703-305(2)(c) — 1 case
State v. Nupeiset, 977 P.2d 183 (Haw. App. 1999). “The justification defense based on defense of others is codified in HRS § 703-305 (1993), which provides: Use of force for the protection of other persons.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 703-305(b) — 1 case
State v. Matuu., 445 P.3d 91 (Haw. 2019). “As noted by the ICA, a person of reasonable caution could conclude "that it was [not] necessary [for Matuu] to stab Frank in the torso multiple times to protect himself against death or serious injury.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.